Collaborative Research in Biotechnology and Role

of Government-sponsored Research Institutes

(GRIs)
Yong-Gil Lee*
Yun-Chul Chung**

Introduction
Government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs) play an important role
and occupy a strategic position in national innovation system. Especially,
GRIs lead various kinds of research in cutting-edge research fields or
technology in areas such as nano-technology and biotechnology, in which
private firms cannot invest so much because of high cost and risks. The
Korean government designed National Technology Roadmap (NTRM) to
develop those technologies efficiently and stimulate collaborative research
among universities, firms and public research institutes. NTRM contains of
key technology list to be developed and promotion plans year by year to
2012. In this paper, we analyse the technology list of NTRM, especially the
list in biotechnology field and matched the GRIs’ research areas to the
technology list. Through this matching and analysis, we suggest a few ideas
about how to collaborate effectively among GRIs.

* Researcher, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Seoul, Korea.

Email: yonggil@kist.re.kr
* * Director, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Seoul, Korea.
Email: ychung@kistmail.kist.re.kr

1
Asian Biotechnology and Development Review

There could be mainly two types of collaboration patterns among GRIs.

The one is vertical collaborative relationship, and the other is horizontal.
Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when a technology cluster
grouped by technological similarity has vertical structure. Horizontal
collaborative relationship is formed when a cluster has horizontal structure.
In these two cases, the role of ‘technological coordinator’, which mainly
conducts the role of funding agency, R&D planning, and designing the
collaborative research, etc, is important.

Reasons for collaborative research

Knowledge production methods are changing from Mode 1 to Mode 2.1
While Mode 1 production process has ‘hierarchical’, ‘disciplinary’,
‘determinate’ characteristics, Mode 2 process has ‘networked’, ‘trans-
disciplinary’, ‘reflexive’ features. In biotechnology field, the equivalent
changes are also happening. From chance discovery and random screening
to rational drug design, screening by design, drug designing methods are
changing.2 The revolution in molecular biology could make this change
happen. Dramatic advances in genetics, genetic engineering, peptide
chemistry and molecular/cell biology have changed a lot of questions. In his
study (Henderson, 1994),3 in hypertensive drugs, the question is changed
from “find me something that lower blood pressure in rats” to “find me
something that inhibits the action of the angiotensin-2 converting enzyme.

In the age of chance discovery and random screening, there is a ‘target

rich’ environment but little knowledge of biological underpinnings of specific
diseases is available. Some firms and institutes have conducted large scale
screening of thousands of compounds. As a result, there are enormous
libraries of chemical compounds. In the era, there was relatively little
communication of knowledge. But, in the age of rational drug design and
screening by design, we could understand the mechanism of action of some
existing drugs and the biochemical and molecular roots of many diseases.
In this era, high level of information flow across the boundaries of scientific
disciplines and therapeutic areas by using cross-disciplinary teams was
possible.

What are the factors and causes of this change? A lot of causes could be
explained. Among them, publicly funded research, ‘academic’ companies,

2
 Collaborative Research in Biotechnology

and the characteristics of biotechnology itself are important factors. Lots

of papers and patents addressing knowledge about the cause of disease
were produced in universities and institutes. As a result, substantial advances
in physiology, pharmacology, enzymology, and cell biology led to enormous
progress. Universities and public research institutes played major roles. On
the other hand, a lot of ‘academic’ pharmaceutical companies, especially
dedicated biotechnology firms (DBFs) encourage both publication and the
presentation of results outside the firms. Those firms also funded academic
research. The characteristics of biotechnology are important, too. The
industry of biotechnology is still a young science-based industry, but a
burgeoning field. Rival’s research efforts are complements rather than
substitutes. Knowledge of their false starts and failures may help to shape
one’s own research programme. But in the triple helix (universities,
government GRIs and industry) concept, modern bioscience has caused a
massive shift in research firepower away from the ‘industry’ part of the
helix to the ‘university’ and ‘GRIs’ component by virtue of massive rise in
public research investment from the ‘government’ part.4

Collaborative research in biotechnology

Multidisciplinary knowledge fundamental to leading-edge drug discovery
and the complex reality of rapidly developing fields is required. To develop
a good drug, the following disciplinary fields described in Figure1 are needed.

Figure 1: Multidisciplinary approach to a new drug development

Find compounds
Design Screen Explore Pharmacology Test in Human
Modify compounds

Synthetic Chemistry Toxicology

Pharmacology
Analytic Chemistry Metabolic Biology
Molecular Biology
Molecular Keinetics Pharmacology
Biochemistry
Peptide Chemistry Formulation
Computer Modelling Process Chemistry

3
Asian Biotechnology and Development Review

Research breakthroughs demand a range of intellectual and scientific skills

that far exceed the capabilities of any single organization. There were as
many as 34 coauthors in Alzheimer’s disease in ‘Nature’.5 The development
of an animal model for Alzheimer’s disease appeared in a report coauthored
by 34 scientists affiliated with two new biotech companies, one established
pharmaceutical firm, and a few leading research universities.6 There were
as many as 45 coauthors in breast and ovarian cancer in ‘Science’
(Henderson, 1994). A publication identifying a strong candidate for the
gene determining susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer featured 45
coauthors drawn from a biotech firm, U.S. medical schools, government
research laboratories, one established pharmaceutical company, etc.7

It is generally known that the propensity to cooperate on R&D is higher for

firms and institutes from science-based or high technology based sectors
with relatively high R&D intensity. Absorption capabilities depend on specific
investment, including the existence of an R&D department and enough qualified
human resources. Internal R&D capabilities have complex influences on
the propensity to cooperate. On the one hand, cooperation may become
necessary because internal resources are insufficient to meet the firms’
and institutes’ strategic goals. On the other hand, the existence of adequate
absorption capabilities increases the returns firms and institutes can expect
from access to external resources. Especially, this second effect has been
found to be stronger in biotechnology (Arora and Gambardella, 1990).

There could be two types of collaborative research patterns among research

organizations. Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when the
technology cluster grouped by similarity has vertical structure as shown in
Figure 2. The technological coordinator plays a role of tuning the flow of
the research among each stage. So, the technological coordinator should
cover the whole process of research and development. Generally, vertical
R&D cooperation is more frequent than horizontal cooperation with rivals.

Horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the technology cluster

has horizontal structure as shown in Figure 3. The technological coordinator
should cover main sub areas of the cluster. Horizontal cooperation with
rivals is more frequent in high-tech sectors.

4
 Collaborative Research in Biotechnology

Figure 2: Vertical technology cluster and technology coordinator

Technology 1 -> Stage 1 Stage 1

Technology 2 -> Stage 2 Stage 2

Coordinator
Technology 3 -> Stage 3 Stage 3

Technology 4 -> Stage 4 Stage 4

Figure 3: Horizontal technology cluster and technology coordinator

Coordinator

Sub area 1 Sub area 2 Sub area 3 Sub area 4

The roles of technological coordinators include:

! R&D planning in the technology cluster
! Funding agency
! Conducting related R&D programmes
! Designing the collaborative research among ‘Triple Helix’
! Commercializing technology, especially transferring technology to
private sectors.

Through the behaviour of technology coordinator, we can minimize

transaction cost and maximize the synergy of collaborative research.

Collaborative research among GRIs

National technology roadmap (NTRM)

Korean government planned to distribute limited R&D resources efficiently
through the “selection and concentration” strategy to enhance national
competitiveness. It means that intensively supporting technologies, which
are likely to acquire world-level superiority in competitiveness, is important.

5
Asian Biotechnology and Development Review

For this purpose, the government, mainly Ministry of Science and Technology,
analyzed industries and technological trends internally and externally, selected
promising key technologies that can acquire global competitiveness based
on 10 years time span, and designed national technology road map (NTRM)
for promoting strategic research and development programmes.8

Beyond forecasting industrial development and analyzing technological trend,

NTRM proposes visions 10 years from now to enhance the national
competitiveness, defines strategic technologies, and suggests a national
technology roadmap for key technologies. NTRM provides guidelines for
sharing strategies related to key technologies among the government and
private sectors and for conducting research and development.

The technology list of Life Science in NTRM is identified in Table 1. Some

21 technologies are listed and analyzed. These technologies are mainly
composed of such fields as ‘new drug discovery and development’,
‘innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment’, and technologies related to
‘Rehabilitation’. From now on we analyze the research areas of five GRIs
associated with biotechnology. There are KRIBB (Korea Research Institute
of Bioscience and Biotechnology), KIST (Korea Institute of Science and
Technology), KRICT (Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology),
KFRI (Korea Food Research Institute), and KIOM (Korea Institute of
Oriental Medicine).

Vertical and horizontal technology clusters

The technology cluster related to ‘new drug discovery and development’ in
NTRM is structured vertically. The number of technologies related to ‘new
drug discovery and development’ in NTRM is nine. We can construct the
technology cluster of ‘new drug discovery and development’ as one vertical
process. To discover new drugs effectively, target recognition should be
conducted at first. Target recognition category contains the target recognition
technology, and the target validity verification technology. Then, candidate
substance should be screened. The main technologies associated with this
category are candidate substance screening technology, candidate substance

6
 Collaborative Research in Biotechnology

Table 1: The 21 key technologies in life science in

national technology roadmap
Technology title
A Biological diagnosis technology
B High-speed analysis system technology
C Target recognition technology
D Target validity verification technology
E Candidate substance screening technology
F Candidate substance optimization technology
G Mass production process technology
H Drug production technology
I Drug delivery system technology
J Safety, evaluation and efficacy analysis technology for medicine
K Clinical test technology
L Handling technology of biological signal process
M Handling technology of biological image process
N Body function analysis technology
O Bio-machine/robotics technology
P Bio materials technology
Q Stem cell cultivation technology
R Gene identifying and conveying technology
S Monitoring technology of biological function
T Bio-information creation and preservation technology
U Bio-information utilization technology

optimization technology, and drug delivery system technology. Next test

should be done, and then production begins. The four processes are linked
vertically. We can represent the process in Figure 4.

Horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster has

horizontal structure. The technology cluster related to ‘innovation in diagnosis
and disease treatment’ is structured horizontally. In this case, GRIs should
form horizontal relationship. Technologies related to ‘innovation in diagnosis
and disease treatment’ in NTRM are as follows.

7
Asian Biotechnology and Development Review

Figure 4: Vertical technology cluster: new drug discovery

and development
New drug discovery and development

Target Recognition
Target recognition technology

Target validity verification technology

Candidate Substance
Candidate substance screening technology

Candidate substance optimization technology

Drug delivery system technology

Test
Safety, evaluation and efficacy analysis technology

Clinical test technology

Production
Drug production technology

Mass production process technology

The technologies related to ‘innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment’

could be structured horizontally as in Figure 5. It could be divided into three
major categories. Each category forms the horizontal relationship. The
category associated with ‘Biological Signal’ contains the high-speed analysis
system technology, handling technologies of biological signal process, and
handling technology of biological image. The category related to ‘Biological
Function’ has such technologies as biological diagnosis technology, body
function analysis technology, and monitoring technology of biological function.
The bio-information category consists of gene identifying and conveying
technology, bio-information creation and preservation technology, and bio-
information utilization technology. Each category is structured relatively

8
 Collaborative Research in Biotechnology

Figure 5: Horizontal technology cluster:

innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment

Innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment

Biological signal Biological function Bio information

High-speed analysis Biological diagnosis Gene identifying and

system technology tech. conveying tech.

Handling tech. of Body function analysis Bio-information creation

biological signal process technology and preservation tech.

Handling tech. of Monitoring tech. of Bio-information

biological image process biological function process utilization tech. process

horizontally compared with the technology cluster of ‘new drug discovery

and development’. Here, the own success in each technology field is more
important. Then the horizontal collaborative relationship could be formed
effectively.

The technology list related to ‘Rehabilitation’ contains bio-machine/robotics

technology, bio-materials technology, and stem cell cultivation technology.

Technological coordinators in the collaborative research

In these two cases, the role of ‘technological coordinator’ is important.
Technological coordinator plays a role like tuning the flow of the research
between each research stage in vertical collaborative research.
Technological coordinator also plays a role like combining each research
output in horizontal collaborative research. It also plays the role of R&D
planning in the technology cluster, funding agency, conducting related R&D
programmes, designing the collaborative research among ‘Triple Helix’,

9
Asian Biotechnology and Development Review

commercializing technology, especially transferring technology to private

sectors.

How can we select the technological coordinators in the research process?

Figures 6 and 7 show the prominent candidates of technological coordinators
in terms of research area covered by GRIs. According to Figure 6, KIST
and KRIBB cover the whole vertical processes of ‘new drug discovery
and development’. Other GRIs cover the field partly. To succeed in
developing the new drugs, the four procedures should be conducted very
efficiently and should be closely linked together. The vertical relationship
between GRIs is accented and the R&D programme should be conducted
collaboratively. From Figure 7, we can choose KRIBB as a good coordinator
in the horizontal technological cluster, ‘innovation in diagnosis and disease
treatment’.

Figure 6: Technological coordinators in vertical technology cluster

New drug discovery and development

Target Recognition

Candidate Substance
KIST
KRICT
KRIBB

Test KIOM

KFRI
Production

10
 Collaborative Research in Biotechnology

Figure 7: Technological coordinators in horizontal technology cluster

KRIBB

KIST

KRICT
KIOM

KFRI

Conclusion
It is clear that there are two types of collaborative research patterns among
GRIs. Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when the technology
cluster grouped by similarity has vertical structure. For example, the
technology cluster related to ‘new drug discovery and development’ is
structured vertically. When GRIs should conduct co-research, they should
consider this point. We could construct the technology cluster of ‘new drug
discovery and development’ as one vertical process, target recognition,
candidate substance, test, and then production. The four processes are
linked vertically. Among GRIs, KIST and KRIBB cover the whole vertical
process of ‘new drug discovery and development’. Other GRIs cover the
field partly.

On the other hand, horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the

cluster has horizontal structure. The technology cluster related to ‘innovation
in diagnosis and disease treatment’ is structured horizontally. It could be
divided into three major categories. Each category forms the horizontal
relationship. The categories are biological signal, biological function, and
bio-information. In this case, GRIs should form horizontal relationship.

11
Asian Biotechnology and Development Review

In these two cases, the role of ‘technological coordinator’ is important.

Technological coordinator plays a role like tuning the flow of the research
between each research stage in vertical collaborative research. So if KIST
and KRIBB could be technological coordinator, the whole process may
probably be linked effectively. Technological coordinator also plays a role
like combining each research output in horizontal collaborative research.
Those two institutes can play the role of coordinator well in the horizontal
cluster in view of tuning the research flow.

Endnotes
1
Etkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997.
2
Henderson et al., 1999.
3
Henderson, 1994.
4
Cooke, 2002 and 2003.
5
Henderson, 1994.
6
Nature, Feb., 1995.
7
Science, Oct., 1994.
8
Ministry of Science and Technology et al., 2002.

References
Arora, A., Gambardella, A. 1990. Complementarity and External Linkages: the Strategies
of Large Firms in Biotechnology. The Journal of Industrial Economics XXXVIII
(June), 361–379.
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. 1989. Innovation and Learning: the Two Faces of R&D.
Economic Journal 99, 569–596.
Cooke, Philip. 2002. Rational Drug Design and the Rise of Bioscience Megacenters. The
Fourth Triple Helix Conference, Copenhagen November 6-9.
Cooke, Philip. 2003. Networks and Hierarchies in Bioscientific Knowledge Management.
DRUID Summer Conference 2003, Copenhagen June 12-14.
Etkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (eds) 1997. Universities and the Global Knowledge
Economy, London: Pinter.
Galambos, L., Sturchio, J. 1996. The Pharmaceutical Industry in the Twentieth Century: A
Reappraisal of the Sources of Innovation. History and Technology, Vol.13 No.2,
pp. 83–100.
Henderson, R. 1994. The Evolution of Integrative Capabilities: Innovation in Cardiovascular
Drug Discovery. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.3, No.3, pp. 607–630.
Henderson, R. and I. Cockburn. 1996. Scale, Scope and Spillovers: The Determinants of
Research Productivity in Drug Discovery’. Rand Journal of Economics Vol. 27,
No.1, pp. 32–59.

12
 Collaborative Research in Biotechnology

Henderson, R., Orsenigo, L., Pisano, G.P. 1999. The Pharmaceutical Industry and the
Revolution in Molecular Biology: Exploring the Interactions between Scientific
Institutional and Organizational Change, In: Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (eds.),
The Sources of Industrial Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lee, Yong-Gil, Se-Jun Lee, Tai-Yoo Kim. 2003. Identification of Generic Technologies in
Life Science Area: Evidence from an Institutional Level in South Korea. The Portland
International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology
(PICMET’03), Portland, Oregon USA. July, 20~24.
Luis Miotti, Frédérique Sachwald. 2003. Co-operative R&D: Why and with Whom? An
Integrated Framework of Analysis. Research Policy 32, pp. 1481–1499.
Ministry of Science and Technology et al. 2002. National Technology Roadmap - Outline.
Seoul: KISTEP.
Pisano, G.P. 1991. The Governance of Innovation. Vertical Integration and Collaborative
Arrangements in the Biotechnology Industry. Research Policy 20, 237–249.
Powell, W.W. 1996. Interorganizational Collaboration in the Biotechnology Industry.
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics Vol.152, No.1, pp.197–215.
Powell, W.W., Doput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational Collaboration and
the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative
Science Quarterly Vol. 41, pp. 116–145.
Won, Yoo-Hyung, Se-Jun Lee, Yong-Gil Lee, Sung-Bae Park. 2003. How to Identify the
Strategic Research Position of Public Laboratories in Nation’s Innovation System?:
A Case from Korean Government-Sponsored Research Institutes (GRIs). The
12th International Conference on Management of Technology IAMOT 2003, Nancy,
France. May, 13~15.

13